From: Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@oakland.edu>

Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 10:42:48 -0500

Message-ID: <3A6C54F8.6381C76C@oakland.edu>

To: Miles Sabin <MSabin@interx.com>

CC: RDF Logic <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>

Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 10:42:48 -0500

Message-ID: <3A6C54F8.6381C76C@oakland.edu>

To: Miles Sabin <MSabin@interx.com>

CC: RDF Logic <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>

Miles Sabin wrote: > > Working on the assumption that there's at most a countably > infinite set of URI(-refs) ... each is a finite sequence of > charaters drawn from a finite alphabet ... and similarly for > Literals, am I right to infer that, > > 1. there is at most a countable infinity of resources: because > every resource has a URI(-ref) and no two distinct resources > share a URI(-ref). > > hence that, > > 2. the set Resources from rdfms 5.1, is at most countably > infinite, > > 3. the set Properties from 5.3 is at most countably infinite: > because a (proper) subset of Resources. > > and hence that, > > 4. RDF models can contain at most countably many statements: > becauce they're subsets of, > > Properties x Resources x (Resources U Literals) > > which is at most countably infinite because Properties, > Resources and Literals are. > > Cheers, > > Miles > > -- > Miles Sabin InterX > Internet Systems Architect 5/6 Glenthorne Mews > +44 (0)20 8817 4030 London, W6 0LJ, England > msabin@interx.com http://www.interx.com/ ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤ Miles, Here's the rub: Do you want to talk about real resources, the resources that there are, or do you want to talk about resources for which you have proper names? This is where it all begins, the formal linguistic aspect of this science of computation of ours, way back with Wilhelm von Humboldt, and the requirement that we "make infinite use of finite means". The catch is known as the "instrumental pigeonhole principle", saying that if there are large cardinalities of resources but only small cardinalities of proper names, then some of the names that we just called proper are really not, but refer more properly to "generals". And if you try to be a "nominal thinker", and try as you are charged "not to confuse a general name with the name of a general", then you are bound to go through your "life of computation" (LOC), hopelessly confused. Many Regards, Jon Awbrey ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤Received on Monday, 22 January 2001 10:42:35 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:38:19 UTC
*